7 ms·

I'm so tired of this whole "xyz lang isn't a REAL lisp". First off, what's your definition of "real lisp", second off, who cares? What point are you trying to m

I'm so tired of this whole "xyz lang isn't a REAL lisp". First off, what's your definition of "real lisp", second off, who cares? What point are you trying to make? Is the language somehow less useful because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of what it means to be a "real" lisp? I imagine you sitting at home in a smoking jacket with some smug smirk typing this out. Saying that a language isn't a "real lisp" because it doesn't use cons cells is like saying a map implemented using a red-black tree isn't a "real" map because it doesn't use an array of nodes.

kazinator 6y ago
The definition of what is Lisp does not have the moving goalposts you imply. > Is the language somehow less useful It may in fact be the most generally useful programming system in the world. But does it have to be misleadingly named? Would you make a four-wheeled bicycle and call it a "skateboard"? > saying a map implemented using a red-black tree isn't a "real" map Rather, it's like writing a map using an array of nodes, and then calling it "red black tree" and using identifiers like rbtree_t and rbtree_node_t all over the code, complete with a rbtree_lower_bound function that calls bsearch, followed by a linear scan to find the lowest duplicate key. Why? Because all the popular maps use red-black trees and the designer doesn't understand what that actually is, believing it to be a synonym for any ordered map. Lisp is not abstract, like "map"; it started as the name of a concrete computer program with a reference manual describing specific features. It spawned descendant systems and imitations. Those which are too far from the original concept aren't Lisp, simple as that. "Lisp" is an implementation word, not an abstraction word. Lisp is a specific implementation of symbolic and list processing with specific shapes of data structures, names of functions and their semantics, treatment of Boolean conditions, syntax, and everything else. Another implementation of symbolic processing, no matter how well or how badly it works, is something else. People who make Algol-like languages understand this. Wirth made some very similar languages yet prudently gave them different names. The result is that anyone who says that Oberon is Pacal or that Pascal is Modula 2 is promptly and correctly regarded as an idiot.

kazinator 6y ago

The definition of what is Lisp does not have the moving goalposts you imply. > Is the language somehow less useful It may in fact be the most generally useful programming system in the world. But does it have to be misleadingly named? Would you make a four-wheeled bicycle and call it a "skateboard"? > saying a map implemented using a red-black tree isn't a "real" map Rather, it's like writing a map using an array of nodes, and then calling it "red black tree" and using identifiers like rbtree_t and rbtree_node_t all over the code, complete with a rbtree_lower_bound function that calls bsearch, followed by a linear scan to find the lowest duplicate key. Why? Because all the popular maps use red-black trees and the designer doesn't understand what that actually is, believing it to be a synonym for any ordered map. Lisp is not abstract, like "map"; it started as the name of a concrete computer program with a reference manual describing specific features. It spawned descendant systems and imitations. Those which are too far from the original concept aren't Lisp, simple as that. "Lisp" is an implementation word, not an abstraction word. Lisp is a specific implementation of symbolic and list processing with specific shapes of data structures, names of functions and their semantics, treatment of Boolean conditions, syntax, and everything else. Another implementation of symbolic processing, no matter how well or how badly it works, is something else. People who make Algol-like languages understand this. Wirth made some very similar languages yet prudently gave them different names. The result is that anyone who says that Oberon is Pacal or that Pascal is Modula 2 is promptly and correctly regarded as an idiot.